"The Apple iPhone may never have emerged if we had blocked or discouraged the type of 'exclusive,' 'discriminatory' deals like the one Apple (a new entrant to the mobile market) struck with AT&T," writes Swanson. "Apple’s entry was a move fraught with uncertainty, and the partnership with AT&T allowed both sides to make the investments of time and money necessary to execute a monumental project. The iPhone unleashed wave after wave of innovation in the mobile arena—like 'app stores'—thus pushing all competitors at many layers of the wireless value chain towards more dynamism and openness than ever before."

What does this mean? We're not sure, Swanson doesn't spell out his concern. It might be about the third plank of the Internet Policy Statement (PDF), which says that "consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network." Under the new FCC rulemaking (PDF), this principle could be extended to wireless networks.

"In this context, we ask how, in what time frames or phases, and to what extent the 'any device' rule should apply to mobile wireless broadband Internet access," says the agency. And it goes on to raise a question about whether the government should "require providers to allow 'tethering' as a form of device interconnection."

So could the FCC's proposed rules really have kept the iPhone trapped in Steve Jobs' brain for all eternity?

"We do not view the open Internet rules proposed here as directly related to handset exclusivity," wrote the agency, "and we do not intend to address that issue in this proceeding, but rather will consider it separately."

So the agency might in fact do something about handset exclusivity, but it considers that a different matter entirely. The exclusivity issue has been a long-running complaint of the rural cell phone industry. It's a question of rural users not having access to new technology, not one about how the network handles packets.

If you live in a rural area where AT&T has no foothold, for instance—no iPhone for you. The same goes for most other "exclusive" phones. Rural cell providers charge that "the handsets that have been made available to RCA [Rural Cellular Association] members are basic, low-end handsets without many of the cutting-edge features customers covet. As a result, the ability of RCA member carriers to compete effectively with the products and services offered by the largest carriers is significantly and unfairly diminished... thereby further enhancing the Big 5's dominant market power."